• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dontre Hamilton Shooting: No Charges for Fired Milwaukee Cop

AJiveMan

Paying To Play
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2014
Messages
5,775
Reaction score
2,064
Location
wisconSIN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Dontre Hamilton Shooting: No Charges for Fired Milwaukee Cop - NBC News

Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke requested National Guard support in anticipation of protests following the announcement. The request comes after protesters blocked traffic on Interstate 43 on Friday, leading to the arrest of 74 people.


When the justice system fails, and all else fails, call in the bigger guns, the National Guard to back up the police departments whose police force uses excessive force, nice going.:roll:

anney was fired by Milwaukee police Chief Edward Flynn in October, not because of his actions in the shooting but rather for failing to follow department rules in the moments leading up to the altercation, resulting in a struggle that left deadly force as the officer's only option.

IMO, that's enough for an indictment right there.
 
failing to follow department rules

IMO, that's enough for an indictment right there.
I am sure you do. :doh

Failing to follow department rules may be reason for termination.
But it is not a reason to find the actions illegal and therefore cause an indictment.
 
I am sure you do. :doh

Failing to follow department rules may be reason for termination.
But it is not a reason to find the actions illegal and therefore cause an indictment.

you are correct. its like the NY incident. Choke holds violate departmental policy but were not illegal

a grand jury determines if there is probable cause to believe a crime was committed, not if the target violated company policies.
 
Only 13? Should have reloaded and dropped another mag in him.
 
I am sure you do. :doh

Failing to follow department rules may be reason for termination.
But it is not a reason to find the actions illegal and therefore cause an indictment.

Manney was fired by Milwaukee police Chief Edward Flynn in October, not because of his actions in the shooting but rather for failing to follow department rules in the moments leading up to the altercation, resulting in a struggle that left deadly force as the officer's only option.

Not following rules that left deadly force as his only option?

Had he followed the rules the man probably wouldn't be dead now, correct?

In other words the cop placed himself in the position where his only act of self-preservation was to use deadly force.

Perks of the job.

Dontre Hamilton Shooting: No Charges for Fired Milwaukee Cop - NBC News
 
IMO, that's enough for an indictment right there.

No, it's not.

But it is a place to begin a discussion.

It can be something like the felony murder rule.

The felony murder rule says that when an offender kills accidentally or without specific intent to kill in the commission of a felony, the offender can be charged with murder.

A similar rule could be applied to police officers.

If a police officer kills consequent to a behavior or action that is forbidden by department rules or policy that officer must be charged with murder.

Something like that.

But absent such mandatory accountability you can't hold an officer accountable.
 
Dontre Hamilton Shooting: No Charges for Fired Milwaukee Cop - NBC News




When the justice system fails, and all else fails, call in the bigger guns, the National Guard to back up the police departments whose police force uses excessive force, nice going.:roll:



IMO, that's enough for an indictment right there.

Let's take that idea one step further and say that the officer was seen texting and driving, instead of opting to frisk a suspected (known?) "menatlly unstable" person, does that violation of police procedure (and civil law) make it OK to attack the officer?

IMHO, once the officer is being brutally attacked (felony assualt) then that alone justifies the use of deadly force regardless of any procedural violation committed prior to that attack.

The same is true of a private citizen; they may have been speeding, lost control of their car and damaged your fence but that does neither gives you the right to beat them nor does that nullify their right of self defense should you begin beating them.
 
No, it's not.

But it is a place to begin a discussion.

It can be something like the felony murder rule.

The felony murder rule says that when an offender kills accidentally or without specific intent to kill in the commission of a felony, the offender can be charged with murder.

A similar rule could be applied to police officers.

If a police officer kills consequent to a behavior or action that is forbidden by department rules or policy that officer must be charged with murder.

Something like that.

But absent such mandatory accountability you can't hold an officer accountable.

The violation of police procedure was to frisk a "crazy" person, which is not a felony.
 
The violation of police procedure was to frisk a "crazy" person, which is not a felony.

I'm not saying that what the cop did was a felony.

I'm using the felony murder rule as an example of an "if A, then B is automatic" legal principal.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1064120933 said:
Not following rules that left deadly force as his only option?

Had he followed the rules the man probably wouldn't be dead now, correct?

In other words the cop placed himself in the position where his only act of self-preservation was to use deadly force.

Perks of the job.

Dontre Hamilton Shooting: No Charges for Fired Milwaukee Cop - NBC News
You really have no point.
Dontre caused the situation which required the Officer to use deadly force.

And if he is fighting his termination it is likely he will get his job back.
 
I'm not saying that what the cop did was a felony.

I'm using the felony murder rule as an example of an "if A, then B is automatic" legal principal.

I still don't follow your logic. Are you saying that a policeman (or anyone, for that matter) must simply take a severe beating (or worse) simply because they initially made a procedural error? Does your right of self defense vanish if you made a mistake?
 
I'm not saying that what the cop did was a felony.

I'm using the felony murder rule as an example of an "if A, then B is automatic" legal principal.

If a robber takes a gun with him, during the commission of a robbery, he intended to shoot someone.
 
Are you saying that a policeman (or anyone, for that matter) must simply take a severe beating (or worse) simply because they initially made a procedural error? Does your right of self defense vanish if you made a mistake?

I'm saying that that's worth discussing.
 
If a robber takes a gun with him, during the commission of a robbery, he intended to shoot someone.

You have solid evidence for this?

Or you can read minds?

Or what?
 
You have solid evidence for this?

Or you can read minds?

Or what?

A robber doesn't have a right to self defense. There's a fact for you.
 
A robber doesn't have a right to self defense. There's a fact for you.

Perhaps not while in the commission of a crime. And perhaps not from his victim or law enforcement officials.

But I would imagine that on his way to the place of the crime, and on the way home, he has as much right to defend himself from another criminal as you or I do.
 
Perhaps not while in the commission of a crime. And perhaps not from his victim or law enforcement officials.

But I would imagine that on his way to the place of the crime, and on the way home, he has as much right to defend himself from another criminal as you or I do.

And, we're discussing a murder committed during the commission of a crime.
 
To the OP...

This is taken from the article you cited...
Attorney John T. Chisholm said that former Milwaukee police officer Christopher Manney "was justified in firing at Dontre Hamilton" because Hamilton had taken Manney's baton while the officer was responding to a complaint about a man sleeping in a public park, and the Manney was attempting to "stop the threat."

In a statement, Chisholm said "the more difficult issue" is determining whether Manney — who shot Hamilton at least 13 times — fired more shots than he needed to in order to subdue Hamilton. But many witnesses testified that Manney stopped firing when Hamilton fell to the ground, prompting Chisholm to rule that the numerous shots were a "defensive action forced upon him by Dontre Hamilton's deadly attack with a police baton."

So...the question is...based on the article you provided...do you believe Dontre Hamilton took the officers baton? Simple question...right?
 
To the OP...

This is taken from the article you cited...
Attorney John T. Chisholm said that former Milwaukee police officer Christopher Manney "was justified in firing at Dontre Hamilton" because Hamilton had taken Manney's baton while the officer was responding to a complaint about a man sleeping in a public park, and the Manney was attempting to "stop the threat."

In a statement, Chisholm said "the more difficult issue" is determining whether Manney — who shot Hamilton at least 13 times — fired more shots than he needed to in order to subdue Hamilton. But many witnesses testified that Manney stopped firing when Hamilton fell to the ground, prompting Chisholm to rule that the numerous shots were a "defensive action forced upon him by Dontre Hamilton's deadly attack with a police baton."

So...the question is...based on the article you provided...do you believe Dontre Hamilton took the officers baton? Simple question...right?
Please don't interrupt the leftist narrative with facts... Clearly this is another instance of a college-bound, gentle black man being gunned down by a racist cop.
 
In response to someone on ignore;

lemme' see, a cop walks up to a man sleeping in a park, who has a mental disability, get's nasty with the man, they argue for a minute, the cop pulls out his stick and takes a swing at the citizen, the citizen is struck with the stick, the man takes the stick away from the cops and begins using it on the cop,

yeah, I can see how an overzealous cop might want to pump 14 shots into someone, the cop was enraged and mad as hell.

I can see it, and visualize it too.

funny how there's never any eye witnesses around when cops shoot citizens or overreact.
 
In response to someone on ignore;
:lamo
Why in the world does someone ignore those who they really are not going to ignore?
D'oh! :doh
 
:lamo
Why in the world does someone ignore those who they really are not going to ignore?
D'oh! :doh

By not being logged into DP and reading the forum. :doh
 
13 bullets??? Unless you think the guy is the terminator you dont need to fire 13 times...
 
In response to someone on ignore;

lemme' see, a cop walks up to a man sleeping in a park, who has a mental disability, get's nasty with the man, they argue for a minute, the cop pulls out his stick and takes a swing at the citizen, the citizen is struck with the stick, the man takes the stick away from the cops and begins using it on the cop,

yeah, I can see how an overzealous cop might want to pump 14 shots into someone, the cop was enraged and mad as hell.

I can see it, and visualize it too.

funny how there's never any eye witnesses around when cops shoot citizens or overreact.

:) Actually that's a claim that is suspicious rather than funny, but not, I think, in the way you would prefer.
 
Back
Top Bottom